In 2025, TP reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.
Wang Chun Kwok, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Ahmad Anouti, University of Texas Southwestern, USA
Wang Chun Kwok
Dr. Wang Chun Kwok Herbert is currently working as Clinical Assistant Professor in the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include airway diseases including asthma, bronchiectasis and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. He was awarded the Li Shu Fan Fellowship for Internal Medicine to support his study in phenotyping and therapeutics of airway diseases. He was also awarded competitive research grant to support his research in respiratory medicine. Dr. Kwok was awarded the APSR 2024:HKLF Professor Wah-kit Lam Young Investigator Award, travel grant to KATRDIC 2024, Outstanding Author of JTD 2024, APSR Travel Award to the JRS Annual Meeting 2024, Assembly Education Award in the 26th Congress of APSR 2022, best oral presentation in the 8th APRC(2022), APSR Teaching Library Award (2019), best Abstract of the Assembly in the 22nd Congress of APSR (2017) and Professor Wah-kit Lam Young Investigator Award 2017/2018 in recognition of his research work. Learn more about him here.
TP: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Kwok: To ensure the research work is conducted appropriately, peer review is needed. The reviewer will first examine if the research question is appropriate. The reviewers will also make sure the methodology is correct and advise for revision if appropriate. The presentation of the results is equally important, which will be assessed in the peer-review process. Lastly, the conclusion should be appropriate based on the results, which the reviewers have the responsibility to check on. Overall, peer review is needed to ensure that the research article is of adequate quality.
TP: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Kwok: Constructive review shall include non-biased constructive comments aiming at pointing out the problems of the research and suggest for improvement. Destructive review is usually making personal biased comments which cannot help to improve the research at all, such as giving comments saying the work is unsatisfactory without clear reasons.
TP: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Kwok: Thanks for reviewing our works, which does not only improve the quality of the research, but also serves as a platform for us to have mutual communication and learn from each other.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ahmad Anouti
Ahmad Anouti, MD, is a pediatric resident at the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) and Childrens Health Dallas in the Physician Scientist Training Program, where he studies pediatric liver disease. Prior to his current position, he was a postdoctoral research fellow at UTSW, working on several research projects focused on liver disease and transplantation. Dr. Anoutis’ research interests include pediatric liver transplant outcomes, biliary atresia, and Fontan associated liver disease. In his 2.5 years at UTSW, he has published 14 different manuscripts in several journals focusing on liver disease in both adult and pediatric patients. He has been involved in clinical, basic, and translational research. Additionally, Dr. Anouti is a biliary atresia and liver transplant patient himself and has been a strong advocate for the community, collaborating with organizations such as Biliary Atresia and Research Awareness (BARE), the Global Liver Institute (GLI), and the American Liver Foundation (ALF). Connect with him on X @anouti_ahmad.
TP: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Anouti: As a physician scientist in training, I fully appreciate the value and importance of peer review. This process plays a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy, quality, and credibility of research before publication. Reviewers assess the manuscript's methodology, data analysis, and conclusions to verify that the research is original, significant, and adheres to the field's ethical and methodological standards, thereby advancing the field. Peer review helps prevent the dissemination of flawed or fraudulent research, encouraging authors to meet high standards and maintain the integrity of the scientific record. It often provides constructive feedback, helping authors refine their work to clarify their arguments and findings, which enhances the overall quality of the published research. Despite the busy schedules of many researchers, the time and effort put into peer reviewing are invaluable as they provide insight into current work in the field while supporting both established and emerging researchers.
TP: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Anouti: A good reviewer in the scientific peer-review process should possess several key qualities, including a knowledge of the field, objectivity, critical thinking, constructive feedback, confidentiality, and punctuality. Reviewers should have a good understanding of the subject matter and stay up to date on the latest developments to assess the accuracy and relevance of the research. While younger reviewers might not have the same level of expertise as their more seasoned counterparts, their basic scientific knowledge and eagerness to learn can provide a new perspective on novel and emerging research projects. It is crucial for reviewers to remain unbiased, evaluating manuscripts solely on scientific merit, and to apply critical thinking to thoroughly analyze the work, identifying any potential flaws. Providing clear, constructive, and actionable feedback is essential. Reviewers must also uphold the confidentiality of the review process, complete their reviews on time to respect publication timelines, and remain vigilant about potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism and data falsification. These qualities ensure that the peer-review process upholds high scientific standards and contributes positively to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
TP: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Anouti: Being a researcher is an intensely demanding job that requires considerable mental effort and resilience. While reviewing might sometimes seem like a misuse of valuable time, it is crucial for staying current with advancements and contributing to progress in the field. Stepping away from one's own projects to review a manuscript offers researchers a fresh perspective not only on the field at large but also on their own work. This can inspire new ideas and approaches that enhance their projects. Reviewing provides a genuine learning opportunity and access to the most relevant and up-to-date information available. This activity allows researchers to stay at the forefront of their field, gaining insights into the latest trends, methodologies, and findings. Additionally, many researchers experience frustration while waiting for feedback on their manuscripts, often due to delays caused by external reviewers. There is a general expectation for one's work to be reviewed accurately, ethically, and promptly. Therefore, it is only fair that researchers reciprocate by engaging in the peer-review process with the same level of diligence and speed. Doing so facilitates a more efficient and effective exchange of knowledge, helping to maintain the integrity of scientific research and accelerate the publication process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
